The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

"A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall constitute concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive

Meanwhile, in light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence may not be imposed, or the sentence may not be mitigated or exempted, taking into consideration equity and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor from Suwon District Court members of the Suwon District Court on June 30, 201 to embezzlement on or after September 29, 201 (Seoul High Court Decision 356), and the Defendant cannot be found to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on or before the final and conclusive judgment on April 21, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015).

Nevertheless, it is the Criminal Act that the court below sentenced punishment in consideration of the crime of final judgment No. 2 and equity in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the crime of this case committed after the final judgment No. 1 became final and conclusive.